Please Just Let ‘Sex And The City’ Die – HuffPost Canada

Its hard to talk about Sex and the City, the show, as something separate from the industry it spawned. When people who didnt watch the show hear the name, they often think of caricatures of women, of Manolo Blahniks, conspicuous consumption, Magnolia Bakery, cosmopolitans. Its easy to dismiss it as an example of vapid materialism, the most artless and hackneyed kind of media aimed at women.

For the most part, thats not what it is or, rather, it hasnt always been like that. Its gotten further and further off the rails as it went on, culminating in two deeply embarrassing film sequels. And this week, more than 10 years after the boring, regressive, out-of-touch Sex and the City 2 showed a burqa-clad Carrie Bradshaw exposing her leg in order to hail a cab in the middle of a Muslim city, theres talk of a third movie or a limited series reboot. Why wont we just let this show die?

iMDB

Like a lot of shows made in the late 90s and early 2000s, much of Sex and the City seems dated today. But when it started on HBO in 1998, women on TV didnt talk about sex, at all. Toxic relationships were rarely explored in depth, especially not from a female point of view. It was a world before Insecure or Fleabag, and seeing women talk candidly about their sex lives was seen as progressive.

The show also differed from what came before it in showing single women in their 30s as glamorous and aspirational instead of lonely and miserable though the characters were deeply flawed and often made bad choices.

Much of it hasnt aged well, like when Samantha dates a black man, or any time theres a non-cisgender character. (Not to mention the Donald Trump cameo.) Its scope is extremely limited: its about what dating is like for thin, conventionally attractive white women who are all obscenely rich hardly representative of New York as a whole. For many people, that wasnt seen as a problem when it debuted in 1998. But arent we further along now?

High-end fashion was always a part of the shows appeal, and that, too, narrowed its point of view. Putting your name on a waiting list for a Birkin bag, like Samantha does in season four, isnt exactly a relatable experience for most people, given that they retail somewhere between USD $40,000 and $500,000. But it wasnt mindless consumption, or at least not always there was a storytelling purpose to that kind of luxe living.

In one episode, Carrie is invited to a baby shower, where shes asked to remove her shoes. They end up being stolen. The friend whos having the baby offers to pay Carrie back, but balks when she finds out they cost hundreds of dollars. She shouldnt have to fund Carries selfish, indulgent lifestyle, she says.

But Carrie starts thinking about all the money shes spent on that friends lifestyle. When women get married, their friends are expected to buy engagement gifts, wedding gifts, pay for their bachelorette parties, and for the luxury of being a bridesmaid. Theyre asked to give money for baby showers, and buy gifts for their friends children. Carrie is single and childfree, and has always pitched in for her friends choices, but shes the one considered selfish.

Not all women without children will opt to buy designer shoes, of course. But that episode made a compelling point about who and what we consider selfish.

The movies, though, have none of that thoughtfulness around their consumerism. Fashion is no longer a fun mode of self-expression; its crass capitalism. In the first one, Carrie gets mad when her friends arent jealous that her partner buys her a huge apartment, for instance. Another scene uses a Louis Vuitton handbag in place of actual emotional resolution. Jezebel suggested that watching it might make you want to become a communist.

And the less that can be said about the second movie, the better. In one memorable scene, Charlotte and Miranda, who both have kids, opine about how hard it is and in one throwaway scene add that they dont know how women without help manage. Its out of touch, to say the least.

iMDB

Youd hope, as a fan, that the kind of storytelling where everyone is straight and white except for two token gay men, who end up together wouldnt continue onto the shows two sequels. Youd be disappointed. If anything, it gets worse.

In the first movie, Carrie hires an assistant whos Black, played by Jennifer Hudson. Shes a prime example of the magical negro trope, where a Black character serves no other narrative purpose than helping a white person with their problems. In the second one, Charlottes nanny being a lesbian is a punchline, revealed at the very end to show how silly she was for worrying her husband was considering an affair with her.

Whats most puzzling about whats happening now is that a lot of fans seem to be lobbying for a third movie, as if they hadnt seen the second one. There was a lot of ire directed at Kim Cattrall, who played Samantha, for saying she wouldnt come back to the show.

I remember getting a lot of grief on social media for not wanting to do a film, she said on a podcast this week. Shes also suggested an actress of colour should play Samantha.

iMDB

While that would help make the very white series a little more diverse, why bother with a reboot? Very few arent actively disappointing think of the buzz around the new seasons of Arrested Development and Gilmore Girls, vs. their realities. And this isnt theoretical: we already have two examples of how bad Sex and the City remakes are, each worse than the last.

If we had more shows about women living authentically, maybe we wouldnt be so attached to this one. Lets make more shows about female characters who arent just straight and white experiencing the pleasure and pain of relationships and intimacy. Lets let this one die before it embarrasses itself further.

Read more from the original source:

Please Just Let 'Sex And The City' Die - HuffPost Canada